Democratic and Republican appropriators are accusing President Bush of urging Congress to pack spending bills with pet projects despite his high-profile crackdown on earmarks this year.

A House Appropriations Committee report accompanying legislation funding the Department of the Interior shows that Bush requested 93 of the 321 earmarks in the bill. A panel report for the financial services and general government spending bill showed that Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

Senate appropriators have identified more than 350 earmarks in the military construction spending bill requested by the president.

Lawmakers say these lists of earmarks are inconsistent with Bush’s tough talk on earmarks this year.

During a Rose Garden speech in January, Bush called for the number of earmarks to be cut in half.

“Earmarks often divert precious funds from vital priorities like national defense,” Bush said. “And each year they cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

“Congress needs to adopt real reform that requires full disclosure of the sponsors, the costs, the recipients, and the justifications for every earmark,” he said. “And Congress needs to cut the number and cost of earmarks next year at least in half.”

When Bush recently nominated former House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) as head of the White House budget office, he reminded Congress that he would veto bills with excessive levels of spending and curb the number of earmarks.

“It would appear the administration likes earmarks from their perspective,” said Rep. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), a Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.

“Inconsistent would be a fair way to say it,” Aderholt said when asked if Bush was being hypocritical for simultaneously requesting and criticizing earmarks.

Legislators say that while Bush has warned them about earmarks, behind the scenes he seeks them just as eagerly as the members of Congress he criticizes.

“The White House has earmarks in everything,” said Rep. David Hobson (Ohio), ranking Republican on the Appropriations energy and water development subcommittee.

Hobson said that last year, when Republicans controlled the House and he chaired the subcommittee, the administration requested new energy and water projects even though Hobson had a policy against starting new projects because many ongoing projects needed to be funded.

“I stopped them and they were furious at me,” he said.

Hobson said that since Bush has asked for the cost of earmarks to be cut in half it would be fair to cut in half the amount of money set aside for projects requested by the president.

“Why should he get a free ride?” Hobson asked.

Sean Kevelighan, press secretary for the White House budget office, explained that Bush doesn’t oppose earmarks. Instead, the president wants to create greater transparency in the appropriations process and ensure that only meritorious projects receive funding.

“We’re not talking about the issue of whether earmarks are all good or all bad,” Kevelighan said. “We’re talking about a process in which taxpayer dollars are being spent in such a way as to be accountable, responsible, and transparent. By doing so, this should clear the way to reducing wasteful spending.”

Kevelighan said it is unfair to compare earmark requests made by the president with requests made by members of Congress because the projects Bush asks for undergo a rigorous review process that does not apply to congressional requests.
“You’re being provided an apples-and-oranges comparison,” he said.

Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said yesterday that Bush has requested the overwhelming majority of earmarks — over 800 — in the energy and water appropriations bill. In a floor speech delivered last week, Obey said that in fiscal 2006 Bush asked for 987 specific earmark projects in the budget for the Army Corps of Engineers. As a result, Obey said, 77 percent of the Army Corps’s budget went for projects earmarked by the administration.
Obey added that he would highlight the Bush administration’s requests for special projects in the coming weeks.

pikesome

06-28-2007, 10:00 PM

"But...But...He made me do it." Whinny asses. I'm sure no one but Bush had any stake in those ear-marks, right?

Taco John

06-28-2007, 10:30 PM

"But...But...He made me do it." Whinny asses. I'm sure no one but Bush had any stake in those ear-marks, right?

Of course they do. It's politics.

This thing appears to have gone completely over your head.

pikesome

06-28-2007, 10:39 PM

Of course they do. It's politics.

This thing appears to have gone completely over your head.

No, I get it but having thieves pointing at other thieves and whinning is a sore spot. I also like how every one is gearing up for Bush leaving office. All the problems are the outgoing president's fault, I had nothing to do with it.

Taco John

06-29-2007, 12:55 AM

No, I get it but having thieves pointing at other thieves and whinning is a sore spot.

Of course it is... :rolleyes:

Bush Radio Address - Dec 16, 2006
"...I'm pleased that Democratic leaders in Congress recently committed themselves to support reforms that would restore transparency and accountability to earmarks. For this year's budget, they pledged to maintain current levels of spending and not include any earmarks. And they agreed to a temporary moratorium on earmarks.

This is a good start, but Congress needs to do much more. My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills.

Republicans and Democrats alike have an opportunity to demonstrate our commitment to spending restraint and good government by making earmark reform a top priority for the next Congress. When it comes to spending your money, you expect us to rise above party labels. By working together to cut down on earmarks, we can show the American people that we can be fiscally responsible with their money and that we can come together in Washington to get results."

No, I get it but having thieves pointing at other thieves and whinning is a sore spot. Isn't that exactly what W was doing in his speech?

pikesome

06-29-2007, 01:22 AM

Isn't that exactly what W was doing in his speech?

Yep. Now I have all my leaders doing the grown up version of "He did it" "Na huh, it was him" All the normal people bitching about Bush being dishonest on the ear-mark issue have a point but I'd rather not hear a Congressman get sanctimonious on the issue. House Ways and Means has been doing this since we had one. The complaints also fail to mention how Bush did it since he doesn't vote on these things. Someone in Congress had to be helping. Were they under duress? Not likely.

jAZ

06-29-2007, 07:40 AM

1 man is resonsible for as many earmarks as ~250 members of congress.

That transparency is brought to you by the Dems. I'd guess that if its new, its only by a matter of degree. Clinton surely had a few earmarks too.

But give the Dems credit fr doing something that the Reps didn't do for 12 years.

BucEyedPea

06-29-2007, 08:02 AM

Here's what Ron Paul says on the Earmarks:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One
June 18, 2007

...even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same.

Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better....

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. ...

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions.

jAZ

06-29-2007, 08:32 AM

Earmarks are an issue, but not the demon they are made to be at times.

Transparency basically solves most of the issue with earmarks. But when 1 man is responsible for 1/3 of the earmarks, that's troubling. Thats a lot of power.

BucEyedPea

06-29-2007, 08:40 AM

I don't disagree with your take on Bush on this...I just was posting some additional points about 'em.

Adept Havelock

06-29-2007, 09:06 AM

Earmarks aren't really a problem...as long as they are of the variety left by ankles.

mlyonsd

06-29-2007, 06:22 PM

Earmarks aren't really a problem...as long as they are of the variety left by ankles.
ROFL

Logical

06-29-2007, 11:13 PM

Earmarks aren't really a problem...as long as they are of the variety left by ankles.I admit I don't understand this but it sounds kinky.

Logical

06-29-2007, 11:16 PM

Here's what Ron Paul says on the Earmarks:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm

Earmark Victory May Be a Hollow One
June 18, 2007That was just a weird moment.

Ugly Duck

06-29-2007, 11:20 PM

Bush requested 17 special projects worth $947 million, more than any single member of Congress.

Can the proceeding post be considered a forfeit under Godwin's law? I'm unaware of the law's stance on the interjection of "Soup Nazis" into an internet discussion.

Logical

06-30-2007, 05:33 PM

Can the proceeding post be considered a forfeit under Godwin's law? I'm unaware of the law's stance on the interjection of "Soup Nazis" into an internet discussion.ROFL Props to both you and UD, UD for his use of the best of Seinfeld to make his point, you for catching the very indirct reference to the Nazi argument.